The Demonstrated Advantages Of Unpacking Ideational Metaphor

Martin & Rose (2007: 152):

Here is an example of ‘conjunction-as-quality' in Tutu’s argument:

Many of those in the security forces who have come forward had previously been regarded…as respectable members of their communities.

This could be unpacked as:

Many of those in the security forces who have come forward were regarded as respectable members of their communities before…they came forward.

How much we choose to unpack ideational metaphors in our analyses will depend on our purposes. We have shown two advantages of unpacking experiential and logical metaphors. One is that by paraphrasing highly metaphorical discourse in a more spoken form, we can show learners how it means what it does, and also design a curriculum that leads from more spoken to more written modes. Another is that we can recover participant roles and logical arguments that tend to be rendered implicit by ideational metaphor. This can be a powerful tool for critical discourse analysis — revealing implicit nuclear relations such as agency and effect, and implicit logical relations such as cause and effect.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this (inelegant) attempt to unpack grammatical metaphor involves reconstruing the temporal Location of a Process — not a Quality — as a temporal relation between two Processes, the second of which is a repetition of the Process embedded as Qualifier:

Many of those in the security forces who have come forward	had	previously	been regarded as	respectable members of their communities
Carrier	Process:	Location	relational	Attribute

Many of those in the security forces who have come forward	were regarded as	respectable members of their communities	before	they	came forward
α			× β
Carrier	Process: relational	Attribute		Behaver	Process: behavioural

[2] This is misleading, because it misrepresents what the authors have demonstrated. To be clear, Martin & Rose have not shown these advantages of unpacking ideational metaphors, not least because, in focusing on individual words, they have confined their explication to elemental metaphors, and largely ignored the syntagmatic syndromes in which elemental metaphors appear, such as the reconfiguring of functions that is necessitated when a sequence is metaphorically reconstrued as a figure. Merely paraphrasing text does not provide a theoretical understanding of what is involved in grammatical metaphor, still less a theoretically-informed curriculum design.

Moreover, because of this narrow focus, Martin & Rose have not shown how to recover participants and logical relations made implicit by ideational metaphor. For example, the unpacking of metaphor, above, does not recover any implicit participants or feature of time. See also the previous illustrative examples:

• Unpacking Grammatical Metaphor: "Conjunction" As Process, and
• Unpacking Grammatical Metaphor: "Conjunction" As Circumstance.

[3] To be clear, this is presumably 'effective', a feature of the grammatical system of AGENCY.

Unpacking Grammatical Metaphor: "Conjunction" As Circumstance

Martin & Rose (2007: 150):

Another common motif in abstract or technical writing is to present a logical relation as a circumstance:

Is      amnesty       being given     at the cost of justice being done?
         Medium      Process           Circumstance (accompaniment)

The logical meaning of at the cost of is concessive purpose (‘without’), giving the following sequence:

Is amnesty being given
without justice being done?

Again this strategy enables a sequence of two activities to be packaged as a single figure, with amnesty as one chunk of information and justice being done as another.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is not a circumstance of Accompaniment, since it does not construe amnesty and the cost of justice being done as joint participants in the process is being given; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 324). Instead, at the cost of justice being done — like without justice being done — is a dependent non-finite clause:

is	amnesty	being given	at the cost of	justice	being done
			without
α			× β
Pro-	Medium	-cess		Medium	Process

[2] To be clear, interpreting at the cost of as marking purpose (enhancement) flatly contradicts the previous interpretation of it as marking accompaniment (extension). In SFL Theory, the relation between the two clauses is concessive condition: if P ('amnesty is being given') then contrary to expectation Q ('justice is not being done').

[3] To be clear, since this is a clause complex realising a sequence of two figures, it is not a metaphorical rendering of a sequence of two figures as a single figure.

Logical Metaphor And Patterns Of Information Flow

Martin & Rose (2014: 149-50):

The Act required that
the application should be dealt with in a public hearing
unless such a hearing was likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice
(for instance, where witnesses were too intimidated to testify in open session).

In this sequence, Tutu first uses a passive clause to start the first message with the application and end with a public hearing. The public hearing is then the starting point for the next message (such a hearing), that ends with a miscarriage of justice. This is then exemplified in the next step. This sequencing of information is shown as follows:

Such patterns of information flow are discussed further in Chapter 6 on periodicity. Here we can note that the logical metaphor (is likely to lead to) enables the sequence of cause (such a hearing) and effect (a miscarriage of justice) to be packaged as chunks of information within a single message.

Blogger Comments:

[1] There are only four problems with this claim:

• ideationally, this is a sequence of four figures;
• textually, this is a message complex of four messages;
• terminologically, 'passive' is a feature of the verbal group; the clause is receptive; and
• the passive verbal group appears in the second message, not the first.

The Act required	that the application should be dealt with in a public hearing	unless such a hearing was likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice	(for instance, where witnesses were too intimidated to testify in open session)
α	" β
	α	× β
		α	= β

The Act	required
Theme	Rheme

that the application	should be dealt with in a public hearing
Theme	Rheme

unless such a hearing	was likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice
Theme	Rheme

for instance, where witnesses	were too intimidated to testify in open session
Theme	Rheme

[2] This confuses an exemplifying relation between figures (logical metafunction) with information flow between messages (textual metafunction), and, moreover, misrepresents both:

• logically, the final figure exemplifies the preceding figure, not a miscarriage of justice; and
• textually, the final message does not take up a miscarriage of justice as its point of departure (Theme).

[3] To be clear:

• the mood Adjunct likely is not part of the Process;
• the metaphor is not merely the logical relation realised as a Process;
• the metaphor involves a sequence of two causally-related figures being realised as a figure of causally-related elements (Token and Value).

The Function Of Logical Metaphor Oriented To Periodicity

Martin & Rose (2014: 149):

On the other hand, logical metaphors combine with experiential metaphors to package activity sequences as manageable chunks of information. This function of logical metaphor is oriented to periodicity. For example, this figure is one step in the argument that Tutu is advancing:

The Act required that
the application should be dealt with in a public hearing
unless such a hearing was likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice
(for instance, where witnesses were too intimidated to testify in open session).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, it is the textual metafunction that deploys ideational metaphor to provide alternative groupings of quanta of information. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 401, 413):

But ideational grammatical metaphors typically have a discourse function of this kind; they are as it were pressed into service by the textual metafunction, to provide alternative groupings of quanta of information.

… the textual metafunction is a powerful part of the explanation of ideational metaphor: ideational meaning is reconstrued in such a way that it suits textual organisation when meanings are being distributed in text. 

[2] As will be seen, 'periodicity' is a confusion of writing pedagogy with SFL Theory, specifically: the textual grammatical systems of THEME and INFORMATION, both misunderstood and rebranded as discourse semantics.

[3] This misunderstands the text. Tutu is not advancing an argument; he is merely reporting what the Act stipulated.

Unpacking Grammatical Metaphor: "Conjunction" As Process

Martin & Rose (2007: 149):

A common motif in abstract or technical writing is to present a consequential conjunction as a process:

This strategy compresses a sequence of two activities into a single figure, by means of experiential and logical metaphors. Experientially, the Agent and Medium stand for activities (‘hearing an application’ and ‘miscarrying justice’) that are reconstrued as things (a hearing, a miscarriage). Logically, there is a relation of consequence between these activities (‘if…then’), which is reconstrued as a process (is likely to lead to). We can unpack such a sequence as a sequence of two figures related by conjunctions:

if such a hearing happens
then justice will be miscarried.

However the logical metaphor of ‘relation as process’ incorporates more than simply consequence. For one thing, the probability of the result is graded as likely to lead to (in contrast to high probability will certainly lead to or low probability will possibly lead to). And the necessity of the consequence is also graded lexically as lead to (in contrast to the stronger result in or weaker associated with).

So one of the reasons that writers use logical metaphors for conjunctions is that they can grade their evaluation of relations between events or arguments. This is a crucial resource for reasoning in fields such as science or politics, in which it is important not to overstate causal relations until sufficient evidence has been accumulated. This function of logical metaphors is oriented to engagement of the reader.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in terms of SFL Theory, in this instance, a sequence of two figures is metaphorically reconstrued as a single figure. See the earlier post: Activity Sequences: A Cornucopia Of Theoretical Inconsistencies.

[2] To be clear, here Martin & Rose misrepresent the transitivity of the identifying clause through accidentally misconstruing it as encoding instead of decoding. The clause is clearly decoding because the Value, a miscarriage of justice, is New information, and therefore Identifier:

Such a hearing	is	likely	to lead to	a miscarriage of justice
Medium Identified Token	Process:		relational: circumstantial: cause	Range Identifier Value
Subject	Finite	Adjunct	Predicator	Complement
Mood			Residue

As a result, the authors misconstrue the Medium as Agent and the Range as Medium — in addition to misconstruing the mood Adjunct as a component of the Process.

[3] To be clear, the expansion relation in the metaphorical clause is causal, not conditional, because a miscarriage of justice is construed as the likely result of such a hearing. It is therefore invalid to unpack the metaphor as a conditional relation.

[4] To be clear, the potential for modal assessment is afforded by both the congruent and metaphorical realisations, and as such, it is not a reason why writers use ideational metaphor. This misunderstanding appears to arise from Martin & Rose misconstruing the mood Adjunct likely as a component of the metaphorical Process.

[5] To be clear, lead to and result in both (equally) construe a causal relation, whereas associated with does not. See, for example, correlation does not imply causation.

[6] To be clear, it is the interpersonal system of modal assessment (e.g. likely) that serves such functions, not ideational metaphor, since it is the interpersonal metafunction that is concerned with enacting intersubjective relations, such as those between writer and reader.

"Logical" Metaphor

Martin & Rose (2007: 148):

In Chapter 3 we introduced ideational metaphor and discussed the experiential type, in which elements of figures are reconstrued as if they were other kinds of elements, such as process thing and quality thing. Here we are going to look at how conjunctions are reconstrued as other kinds of elements, including processes, things, qualities and circumstances. This is the logical type of ideational metaphor, or logical metaphor. It is used to reconstrue logical relations between figures as if they were relations between elements within figures. Logical metaphor always involves experiential metaphor as well.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, 'element' and 'figure' are orders of phenomena in the ideational semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999).

[2] To be clear, this is elemental metaphor considered in isolation, ignoring the syntagmatic complexity that arises when they cluster as syndromes; see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 244-9). However, this characterisation confuses a class of form (conjunction) with functions (process, thing, quality, circumstance). In SFL Theory, conjunctions, or conjunction groups, realise the function 'relator' (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 59).

[3] To be clear, if the metaphors involve both logical and experiential meanings, then they are ideational metaphors, not merely logical metaphors.

[4] To be clear, this involves syntagmatic syndromes of elemental metaphor of the type where a figure is realised as an element; see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 250-2). The two other types of syndrome are where a sequence is realised as a figure, and where a figure with process is realised as a figure with process as thing; see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 252-5).

Misrepresenting The Conjunctive Relations In Tutu's Argument

Martin & Rose (2007: 147-8):

Now let’s look at connections within one stage, in Figure 4.12.

 

In contrast to Helena’s Incident, this Argument is organised primarily by internal conjunction. As we discussed earlier, the grounds for this Argument unfold as a series of conditions that we expect to negate Tutu’s thesis, but are then countered with In fact. 

The scope of the conclusion (Thus) is the grounds as a whole. This is followed by the example, which we have rendered with (e.g.). This example unfolds as a sequence of consequences for the security force members, which we have rendered with (so). 

The last consequence is not another event, but rather Tutu’s conclusion about this penalty (quite a price to pay). Again the scope of this is the example as a whole, supporting the statement that Thus there is a penalty…

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously discussed here, this completely misunderstands the argument of Tutu's text. As can be seen in Tutu's text above, there is no series of conditions with the potential to counter Tutu's thesis. On the contrary, the conjunctive Adjunct in fact — marking verifactive clarification in SFL Theory — initiates a clause that verifies that virtually all important applications have been dealt with publicly, just as the Act requires.

[2] As pointed out in the preceding post, the meaning of thus in this instance is 'thereby, by such means' not 'therefore', and so the conjunctive relation that obtains is one of means (manner), not consequence (cause-condition).

[3] To be clear, if the relation that obtains here could validly be rendered by the inserted (e.g.), then in SFL Theory, the relation would be one of exemplifying apposition, not similarity. However, the interpretation is, in any case, invalid because the clause:

Thus there is the penalty of public exposure and humiliation for the perpetrator.

is not exemplified by the clause:

Many of those in the security forces who have come forward had previously been regarded as respectable members of their communities.

since the latter does not develop the former by becoming more specific about it or providing an example; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 463).

[4] To be clear, this again demonstrates why Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 622) caution against assigning implicit conjunction in the interpretation of a text. Here other interpretations are at least as plausible, such as those marked by as a matter of fact (verifactive clarification) or and (positive addition):

Many of those in the security forces who have come forward had previously been regarded as respectable members of their communities.

(And / As a matter of fact) It was often the very first time that their communities and even sometimes their families heard that these people were, for instance, actually members of death squads or regular torturers of detainees in their custody.

(And / As a matter of fact) For some it has been so traumatic that marriages have broken up.

[5] This analysis misunderstands the text. To be clear, the final clause actually relates solely to the immediately preceding clause, through its demonstrative reference item that referring back to the preceding marriages have broken up. That is, it is the break up of marriages that is quite a price to play.

(It might also be observed that, contrary to the authors' claim, that is quite a price to play is not a logical consequence of thus there is the penalty of public exposure and humiliation for the perpetrator.)

Misrepresenting The Conjunctive Relations In Tutu's Exposition

Martin & Rose (2007: 147):

Let’s now see how Tutu uses conjunction to organise his exposition, in Figure 4.11.

In contrast to Helena’s story, all the connections between stages and phases of the exposition are internal. We have rendered the relation between the Thesis and the first Argument as internal succession (firstly), and the following Arguments are explicitly added to each other (also, Further). Within each Argument, the grounds expect its conclusion (Thus).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This rendering is invalid, not least because there is not even an implicit temporal relation between the two clauses. But it is also invalid because the word inserted by Martin & Rose to mark the temporal relation back to the preceding text, firstly, never marks a conjunctive relation to the preceding text. In correlatives such as first…next, it is the second term that marks the relation back to the preceding text; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 613-4).

[2] The insertion of that is by Martin & Rose to mark a relation of comparison is invalid on at least two grounds. Firstly, any implicit relation is indeterminate. For example, the implicit relation here could be more reasonably rendered by on the contrary, given the contrasting predications in the two propositions (the only form of justice vs another kind of justice).

Secondly, if the implicit relation were validly rendered by that is, in SFL Theory, it would mark elaboration (apposition: expository), not comparison; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 612-3).

[3] Here Martin & Rose misunderstand the nature of Tutu's argument. The first and second instances of thus in this text mean 'in this way' and therefore mark a relation of manner, not consequence. Interestingly, the metaphorical notion of 'grounds expecting a conclusion' assigns a mental process to each of the premisses of an argument.

Misanalysing Logical Relations In Misinterpreting A Text

Martin & Rose (2007: 146-7):

Let’s now turn to the discourse patterns within Helena’s first Incident, shown in Figure 4.10.

Within this stage, connections are all external, as Helena recounts the events and describes her love. To begin with, succession is expressed lexically (It was the beginning...), and we have rendered it with (then), since the relationship implicitly follows the first meeting. 

Then unexpected contrasts are realised explicitly by even and Even if, but note that the direction of the latter connection is forward (to he was popular.. .) rather than back, like most connections. …

We have then rendered the connection between his leaving and Helena’s reaction (I was torn to pieces) as consequence (so), and of course his reaction is the same (So was he). The next event in the succession is her short marriage, rendered with (then), and this is followed by its cause.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The general confusion is between 'time' as a category of expansion, which has many manifestations in the grammar, and just one of its manifestations: conjunctive relations.  However, in this instance, there is no temporal conjunctive relation implicit in the text. Moreover, the insertion of then by Martin & Rose misinterprets the text, since it explicitly identifies the relationship as beginning with the first meeting, rather than as something that developed later.

[2] Here again Martin & Rose demonstrate that they do not understand the distinction between the terms 'lexical' and 'grammatical'. The wording it was the beginning (of a beautiful relationship) is grammar — a clause — not lexis.

[3] Here again Martin & Rose mistake a modal Adjunct of intensity, even, for a continuative marking a logical relation. As previously explained, the interpersonal meaning here is counter-expectancy: exceeding.

[4] To be clear, the conjunction even if marks a hypotactic relation of concessive condition between clauses in a clause complex. Its meaning is 'if P then contrary to expectation Q'. The reason why the "direction of connection" is forward is because the relation is structural (logical) rather than cohesive (textual). It is only cohesive relations that necessarily relate to preceding text.

[5] On the one hand, here Martin & Rose misunderstand the text, since Helena's reaction was to ‘We won’t see each other again... maybe never ever again’, not to the imaginary wording his leaving. On the other hand, they insert a logical relation of consequence (cause: result) where any implicit logical relation is indeterminate. For example, a punctiliar temporal relation, as in at that moment I was torn to pieces, is at least as plausible.

[6] As previously observed, in SFL theory, so is a substitute for the Residue of the clause, not the marker of a conjunctive relation.

[7] Again, there is no logical relation in the text, and other implicit relations are at least as plausible:

• (as a matter of fact) An extremely short marriage to someone else failed all because I married to forget. (verifactive clarifying elaboration);
• (and) An extremely short marriage to someone else failed all because I married to forget. (positive additive extension);
• (as a result) An extremely short marriage to someone else failed all because I married to forget. (causal-conditional enhancement).

Misconstruing Experiential Elements As Logical Relations

Martin & Rose (2007: 145-6):

Note that in Figure 4.9 we have allowed at least one line between each connected figure, so that we can draw the connection. Most of the connections are external succession, as the story unfolds in time (drawn on the right). Some are realised explicitly by conjunction (Then, again, Then, finally), but others are realised by circumstances (After my unsuccessful marriage, After about three years, Today), so it is a simple matter to show this succession by inserting (then) in brackets.

Most of these successive connections are simply between phases as the story unfolds, but when we get to the Interpretation, their scope includes the whole story. They connect the Interpretation right back to the Orientation (My story begins...), spanning all the events between, as we have drawn. The same is also true of the internal connection between the Coda (I end with a few lines...) and the Orientation. This internal succession is realised lexically with I end, which we have rendered as the conjunction (lastly), and connected back to the start.

We have already discussed the implicit similarity between the Orientation and first Incident, rendered as (that is). There is also an implicit contrast between the two Interpretation phases of ‘black struggle’ and ‘white guilt’, which we have shown with (by contrast).

By these simple techniques we can show how a text unfolds logically, by conjunction between figures, phases and text stages. The relation may be implicit but is apparent lexically as a circumstance (e.g. After about three years), a process (I end), or participants (the people of the struggle vs our leaders), and so can be rendered as a conjunction.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the unacknowledged source of the semantic notion of a 'figure' is Halliday & Matthiessen (1999), where it refers to the order of complexity in ideational meaning that is congruently realised as a clause.

[2] To be clear, circumstances function experientially within clauses, not logically between them, and so their analysis does not demonstrate "how a text unfolds logically". Moreover, inserting the conjunctions then, now and lastly into the text misrepresents the actual logical relations in the text. The commonality here is the realisation of time, not of logical relations.

[3] Here Martin & Rose demonstrate that they do not understand the distinction between the terms 'lexical' and 'grammatical'. Circumstances, processes and participants are grammatical categories, not lexical categories.

[4] See the earlier post Misconstruing Imaginary Elaboration As Similarity.

[5] The relevant portions of text are:

'black struggle'
I finally understand what the struggle was really about. I would have done the same had I been denied everything. If my life, that of my children and my parents was strangled with legislation, if I had to watch how white people became dissatisfied with the best and still wanted better and got it. I envy and respect the people of the struggle — at least their leaders have the guts to stand by their vultures, to recognise their sacrifices. 

'white guilt'
What do we have? Our leaders are too holy and innocent. And faceless. I can understand if Mr F. W. de Klerk says he didn't know, but dammit, there must be a clique, there must have been someone out there who is still alive and who can give a face to 'the orders from above' for all the operations. Dammit! What else can this abnormal life be than a cruel human rights violation? Spiritual murder is more inhumane than a messy, physical murder. At least a murder victim rests. I wish I had the power to make those poor wasted people whole again, I wish I could wipe the old South Africa out of everyone's past.

To be clear, the authors' 'contrast' is a rebranding of Halliday's textual grammar, the conjunctive relation of 'adversative addition', as logical discourse semantics. However, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 622) provide the following reasons against assuming conjunctive relations where none are expressed:

It is perhaps as well, therefore, to be cautious in assigning implicit conjunction in the interpretation of a text. It is likely that there will always be other forms of cohesion present, and that these are the main source of our intuition that there is a pattern of conjunctive relationships as well. … Moreover the absence of explicit conjunction is one of the principal variables in English discourse, both as between registers and as between texts in the same register; this variation is obscured if we assume conjunction where it is not expressed. It is important therefore to note those instances where conjunction is being recognised that is implicit; and to characterise the text also without it, to see how much we still feel is being left unaccounted for.

The Relation Between Generic Stages And Discourse Phases

Martin & Rose (2007: 144-5):

It is possible by these means to show all the logical connections in a text, but to simplify the presentation we can first show in one diagram how each generic stage and discourse phase is connected, and then show the connections within each stage in a separate diagram. This allows us to see a text’s overall logical structure, before examining more local connections. To begin with we’ll show connections between stages and phases in Helena’s story, in Figure 4.9. First let’s glance again at this structure of stages and phases:

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, according to the authors' model of stratification (p309), genre is theorised as two levels of symbolic abstraction above discourse semantics, and contrasted with language:

Nevertheless, here Martin & Rose present generic stages (not language) and discourse phases (language) in a constituency relation at the same level of symbolic abstraction, and, contradicting the distinction in Figure 9.2, both as language (text).

Misconstruing Imaginary Elaboration As Similarity

Martin & Rose (2007: 144):

This type of diagram drawing connections between elements is known as a reticulum. In this example, Then explicitly signals succession between the second and third clauses. This is external succession of events in the story, so we have drawn the connection on the right. But there is also an implicit connection between the first and second clauses. The Orientation My story begins in my late teenage years.. . is elaborated by the first event As an eighteen-year-old I met.. so the logical relation between these clauses is one of similarity: reworking. To show this we have inserted an implicit conjunction in brackets (that is), and the connection is drawn on the left.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this misrepresents the text under analysis:

My story begins in my late teenage years as a farm girl in the Bethlehem district of Eastern Free State. 

As an eighteen-year-old, I met a young man in his twenties. He was working in a top security structure. It was the beginning of a beautiful relationship. We even spoke about marriage. A bubbly, vivacious man who beamed out wild energy. Sharply intelligent. Even if he was an Englishman, he was popular with all the 'Boer' Afrikaners. And all my girlfriends envied me. 

Then one day he said he was going on a 'trip'. 'We won't see each other again... maybe never ever again.’ I was torn to pieces. So was he. An extremely short marriage to someone else failed all because I married to forget.

[2] To be clear, there is no implicit elaborating relation between these two messages, as demonstrated by the fact that the second message is not a restatement or clarification of the first; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 615-6).

[3] To be clear, if the second message had been an elaboration of the first, the relation between them would have been elaboration, not similarity, which for Martin & Rose is a subtype of comparison. In SFL Theory, comparison is a subtype of enhancement, not elaboration.

The Classification Of Continuatives

Martin & Rose (2007: 143):

So we can classify continuatives both by the type of logical relations, and the type of expectancy they realise, as in Table 4.7.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, firstly, in the foregoing discussion, Martin & Rose have classified a class of word, the continuative, a subtype of conjunction, and presented the classification as discourse semantic rather than grammatical.  This is inconsistent in terms of stratification.

Secondly, in doing so, Martin & Rose have taken a bottom-up perspective: beginning with forms and then classifying them in terms of function. This is the opposite perspective of SFL Theory, which takes a top-down perspective: first determining the distinctions in meaning and then identifying how such distinctions are realised.

Thirdly, in terms of SFL Theory, none of words claimed to be continuatives are actually continuatives. As previously demonstrated, they are a mixture of adverbs and conjunctions functioning as either mood Adjuncts (interpersonal metafunction) or conjunctive Adjuncts (textual metafunction). Interpreting the function of these items as logical is also theoretically inconsistent in terms of metafunction.

[2] To be clear, firstly, as previously demonstrated, in terms of SFL Theory, the items too, also and as well do mark a relation of addition, but they serve as conjunctive Adjuncts and mark a textually cohesive relation at the level of grammar, rather than continuatives marking a logically structural relation at the level of discourse semantics. The theoretical confusions here are both metafunctional and stratal.

Secondly, as previously demonstrated, in terms of SFL Theory, none of the items marks a relation of comparison. The item so (did he) serves as a conjunctive Adjunct and marks a textually cohesive relation of addition, whereas the items only, just and even function interpersonally as mood Adjuncts of intensity. The theoretical confusions here are in terms of expansion relation, metafunction and stratification.

Thirdly, as previously demonstrated, in terms of SFL Theory, the items already, finally, at last, still and again do mark temporal features, but not those ascribed to them by Martin & Rose. The items already and still function interpersonally as mood Adjuncts of temporality, whereas the items finally and at last function textually as conjunctive Adjuncts marking a cohesive relation of time. The instance provided of the item again, on the other hand, functioned experientially as a circumstance of temporal Extent. The theoretical confusions here, once more, are both metafunctional and stratal.

[3] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, in terms of SFL Theory, the only types of expectancy here are interpersonal, and apply to the mood Adjuncts of intensity and temporality (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 187-9):

• only and just: counter-expectancy: limiting;
• even: counter-expectancy: exceeding;

• already: 'by' the time at issue;
• still: 'since' the time at issue.

The theoretical confusions here, once again, are both metafunctional and stratal.